Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 163 (Motions to sit in private):—
	The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 38.

Alan Williams: The aim is to address such incidents when they happen, and, more importantly, to stop them happening in the first place. That is much more difficult and requires a major educative programme, which I would the Government to introduce. I hope the Minister will give some reassurances on that.
	Where the Government and I differed—here I shall delight the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who finds himself in an unusual alliance—was on the issue of assault. I accept that there is legislation that should and would provide for the same penalties as the Bill envisages. The problem is that it is used either rarely or not at all. The other emergency services see that the police have separate legislation embodying the same sentences and that cases involving the police are taken through to successful prosecution and sentencing, whereas the fire brigades and ambulance services have difficulty with such cases. That is why we are asking for a separate Act.
	This is where I shall destroy the weekend of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. The Government and I had discussions, and they made it clear that there is a sticking point for them, so enamoured are they of the argument made by the right hon. Gentleman. There is a sticking point to the extent that I could have lost the whole Bill—

Alan Williams: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh!", but he said he supports the Bill. The choice I had to make, which also had to be made by fire brigades officers, the Fire Brigades Union and the ambulance workers, was over whether they wanted to lose their new defence of taking action against impeding in order to go down fighting for legislation that would almost certainly be lost due to means that we all well understand in this place—being talked out either today or, most certainly, on Report, which is the death ground of so many private Members' Bills.
	Instead—not with enthusiasm, but in the hope that the good will is genuine in respect of what has been offered in return—I have agreed that in Committee we shall remove the repetitious element dealing with assault. I want my Bill to go through, so I am willing to rely on the written guarantees I have received, which the Minister has undertaken to reiterate today. She has particularly assured me that she will try to ensure that there are measures to achieve more prosecutions under existing law—it seems to be the will and machinery that are lacking—and that the Government will try to improve the sentencing guidelines. In that respect, they envisage assault on an emergency worker being treated as an aggravated offence. It would therefore involve a higher sentence.

Alan Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The advantage of dialogue between Ministers and Back Benchers was shown on this occasion, because I was able to enlighten the Minister on the activities of NHS security management and the seventeenfold increase in the number of prosecutions it has brought. That shows the value of a catalyst, as well as the inadequacies of the CPS, which are equally worrying. One is bound to wonder how someone other than the CPS can show a will to enforce legislation, over which the CPS sometimes seems dilatory.
	In relation to the points made by the Minister about sentencing guidelines—we all know how those work—my doubt, which I put to her, is this: if she can do this now that I have introduced my Bill, why on earth has she not done it already? Months ago, in the House of Lords, Baroness Scotland was making the same argument—we can get the Sentencing Guidelines Council to alter its guidelines to the courts—yet, as far as I can establish, up to the time of my consultations with the Minister there had been no progress in that respect.
	It is not my intention to belabour the issue; the case is made. I have said that I would substantially amend the Bill in the House of Lords—gosh, that would be an achievement. I am due to retire at the end of this Parliament, but I assure the House that no one has made any offers to me at this stage. At the moment, I should confine myself to a Committee Room Upstairs, inadequate as it may be.
	May I make it clear to the Minister that, while I accept her assurances, which I genuinely believe were made in good faith—I have a high regard and respect for her—she has to realise that the Members of Parliament sitting here, our colleagues who are unable to be present, the emergency services and the press will monitor performance against the commitments given today? Now it is up to the Government.

Angela Watkinson: I commend the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on his good intentions in introducing the Bill, and I am sure there is consensus across the House that attacks on emergency services workers are disgraceful and abhorrent. However, my concern is that the existing law should be able to protect emergency workers from attacks of all sorts made during the execution of their duty. That will be the thrust of my brief comments.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned genuine emergencies in which emergency services—whether the police, ambulance crews or fire service personnel—deal with victims, such as members of the public whom they are attempting to help. However, there are additional victims when the emergency services come under attack. Such attacks impede them as they attempt to provide assistance to the victims of a road accident, a fire or whatever it happens to be, thereby exacerbating the effect of those attacks.
	Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, has warned about the increase, in communities across the country, in what he describes as "recreational attacks" carried out by young people for their amusement. He says:
	"Many attacks are in deprived areas with poor youth facilities and poor housing".
	There might well be poor youth facilities and housing in those areas, but that is not an excuse. I would like to see parents brought to book to answer for the bad behaviour of their unsupervised children. If those young people are below the age of criminal responsibility, the parent should be held responsible. Parents should know where their children are and what they are doing while they are outside the home. If children cannot be trusted to behave in an acceptable way, parents should entertain them in their homes, and teach them the difference between right and wrong.
	Fire service personnel in particular are victims of hurled insults and spitting, a particularly nasty habit. Such actions do not cause permanent injury but are exceedingly demoralising, and such seriously antisocial behaviour affects the way in which fire crews are able to go about their duties. I would like legislation to cover that, if it is not covered already.
	I concur absolutely that these are serious offences that must be dealt with. I have two caveats, however, about what the right hon. Member for Swansea, West is trying to do. First, I feel that the existing law should and could deal with all the offences that he has mentioned. The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and sentencing guidelines ought to be able to deal with all those serious offences. There is no doubt that they need to be dealt with, and that there should be more prosecutions, but I remain to be convinced that existing law does not allow the police to bring that about.

Eric Forth: I follow my hon. Friend's argument about assault, and I think that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) covered that matter in his comments and in his conversation with the Minister. Is my hon. Friend equally satisfied, however, about the issue of impeding? The right hon. Member for Swansea, West correctly laid a lot of emphasis on making sure that the definition of impeding actions should be made absolutely clear and explicit and that there should be a mechanism to deal with them. Do my hon. Friend's reservations extend to that, or is she happy, as I think that I am now, that the right hon. Gentleman is focusing in on that element of the Bill?

Richard Younger-Ross: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his recognition. It gives me great pleasure that we are discussing the Bill today, and it gives me even more pleasure to learn that the right hon. Gentleman has reached a compromise with the Government enabling the Bill to proceed at least in part, if not in total.
	I know that any Member who moves the Second Reading of a Bill—such as the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound), who is sitting behind the Minister—must compromise on certain clauses if the Bill is to proceed. That does not mean that others cannot argue that the original intent is worthy of consideration, and challenge the Government to justify the changes that they seek. What must also be justified today, however, is the contention that the offences specified in the Bill cannot be dealt with by existing legislation. That was raised by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who I am sure will enlighten us further should he be lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if the offences could be dealt with by existing legislation, this debate would be a waste of time and we would do better to press the Government to enforce that legislation. It has become clear to me, however, that the existing law is not working, and is not adequate to deal with the growing number of assaults and cases of services' being impeded.
	In the last Parliament, I had the pleasure of being part of the Liberal Democrat team shadowing the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I had special responsibility for the fire and rescue services, and was a member of the Standing Committee considering the Bill that became the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. That Bill was generally welcomed, and was supported by all three parties in principle if not always in detail. As the party spokesman, I visited different parts of the country to speak to fire crews. I was horrified that, wherever I went, I heard tales of assaults on crews. I visited the Strathclyde control room, which it is particularly worth looking at because the Government plan to reproduce that model across the rest of the United Kingdom. The stories staff told me were similar to those I had heard from the rest of the country. I heard about fire crews not just being attacked but being deliberately set up, with a call being made and an ambush laid across the road. Perhaps a car would be set on fire, or crews would be called to a dead end, pull in, find their way blocked and be stoned and attacked by youths.Such tales will be familiar to ambulance and fire crews in Northern Ireland, but to find that people are doing that for kicks, in a part of the UK where there is not such civil disruption, is a serious and dangerous trend.
	The growing number of attacks on nurses in hospitals is again well documented, but, as I acknowledged in an intervention, the Government have taken action to deal with that. When I asked questions about that matter previously, I was told that the Government believed that this legislation was unnecessary because they had already taken steps to deal with the problem, and I accept that a lot of work has been done.

Richard Younger-Ross: I thank you for your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not aware that Tim Martin had said that. He is a constituent of mine—[Interruption.] I stand corrected. Tim has now moved on; he used to be director of that company. The new director made those comments.
	I come back to the legislation under discussion. I hope that the Minister will say, and be able to prove in Committee, should we get that far, exactly why the Government wish the assault provisions to be stripped out of the Bill, why they feel that that matter is adequately covered and why the Bill does not aid existing legislation. What is sought, and what I sought in my campaign, is to ensure that emergency workers have equity with the police, who are already offered protection under their own legislation. That comes back to the comments by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) about whether this Bill is creating separate legislation. As I said, such legislation already exists for the police. The Bill extends that protection to other emergency workers who are going about their duty.
	When we were brought up in the 1950s and 1960s—and the 1970s and 1980s—the issue was not so important and emergency workers did not require such protection because, to be blunt, assaults were not committed. Times have changed. When times change, it is for us as legislators to ensure that we keep up. That is why I believe that this is an important Bill.
	The hon. Lady mentioned the categories of people listed in the Bill. They include members of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I have a lifeboat station in my constituency and I am told by members of its crew that, occasionally, people try to impede them and that they have assaulted when they have been going about their duty. Also included are social workers—there was some cross-Bench chat about that earlier, when some concern was expressed. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) seemed to be saying that MPs act as social workers. Occasionally, perhaps we do, but not in the context of an emergency. The Bill clearly defines that a social worker would be protected under the legislation when taking action
	"required or permitted by
	(i) a care order;
	(ii) a supervision order;
	(iii) a child assessment order;
	(iv) or emergency protection order".
	Also covered are approved social workers within the meaning of section 145(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983, chapter 20. There are specific cases where social workers have been attacked, or impeded in going about their duties, which can be deemed, in terms of child care or mental health, to be an emergency within the meaning of the Bill. Measures to protect social workers were added to the Scottish legislation after a Lib Dem amendment was accepted by the Scottish Executive. I am very pleased that they are included in this Bill.
	I believe that enough of a case has been made for the Government to answer questions on how they are responding to attacks on emergency workers, and for the Bill to go to Committee stage to be considered in greater detail. If the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and other Members are not convinced, they will have an opportunity at a later stage to reject or to vote against the legislation. I urge them at this stage to support the Bill. It should move on to Committee, Report and eventually Third Reading. It is worthy and well supported across the country.

Andrew Dismore: As my hon. Friend says, three hours it is then.
	I am chair of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group. In that capacity, I have had discussions with the Fire Brigades Union, which wholeheartedly supports the Bill. Before coming to the House, I was the solicitor for the Fire Brigades Union for almost 20 years. In that capacity, I saw many cases of firefighters who were injured as a result of arson or assault. Some injuries were career threatening. Some firefighters even had to retire as a result of what happened to them. For that reason, I strongly welcome the additional protections afforded by the Bill and, in particular, the Government's assurances as to how such offences should be treated in future.
	The Fire Brigades Union recently published research showing that attacks on UK fire crews were running at some 40 a week and that the problem was getting worse. The research found that under-reporting meant that the figure could be as high as 120 attacks a week. In some parts of the country, fire crews are served a daily diet of bricks, bottles and missiles as they attempt to fight fires. In other incidents, ambushes have been set for firefighters. The attacks include scaffolding poles being thrown through the windscreens of fire engines. That not only impedes, puts at risk and injures the firefighters but puts the fire engine out of action not only for that fire call but potentially for many other fire incidents that it would otherwise have attended. Crews have been attacked with concrete blocks, bricks and bottles. They have been shot at and spat at. There have been direct physical assaults them. Equipment has been tampered with, stolen or even urinated on. The number and ferocity of the attacks seem to be getting worse. It can never be part of anyone's job to get a brick or bottle in the head as they are simply doing their duty.
	Many attacks take place in deprived areas with poor youth facilities and poor housing, where bored young people turn to drugs and alcohol. In some areas there seems to be culture of recreational violence with fire crews as the targets, often when dealing with fires that those vandals have set themselves to bring the firefighters into the trap that they have created.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We know that if people have little confidence in the legal system they are less likely to report a crime, whether it be an assault on a firefighter, or other emergency worker, or domestic violence. Domestic violence is now treated much more seriously. The statistics have gone up, not because there is more domestic violence but because women know that if they are subject to it, it will be taken more seriously by the police. Similarly, if we send out the clear message from the House by allowing this Bill to pass through Parliament that we, as parliamentarians, are standing up for our emergency service workers and will not tolerate this, people will report offences more and the legal system will treat them far more seriously.
	If firefighters cannot carry out their jobs because of violent assaults, the communities in which those assaults are being committed are being put at risk. Fire crews welcome the Bill because it complements the package of measures that are being put in place to tackle the underlying problem. The FBU hopes that it will get widespread support.
	Some important points have been made in the debate about the position of public service workers generally. The Government's position is that the Sentencing Guidelines Council can put forward clearer recommendations to judges and that sentencing can be sufficiently flexible to embrace not only emergency service workers such as fire crews and ambulance staff but public sector workers generally. It cannot be right that anybody serving the public, whether as an emergency worker or more generally—I am thinking of the examples given by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)—should be subject to assault or abuse. Everybody doing such a job is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity and to have their customers treat them as the customers would expect to be treated by public service workers.
	The proposed new offence of impeding an emergency worker would plug a significant gap in the law, as we have learned from discussions with the fire service. The current law is somewhat vague. The hon. Member for Upminster mentioned road blocks. A road block may well be an offence, but there is a world of difference between creating an obstruction on the public highway and obstructing a fire engine or an ambulance on its way to an emergency call. One is potentially a relatively trivial offence that is unlikely to be the subject of prosecution, whereas, under the Bill, the other would be subject to prosecution with, it is to be hoped, a severe sentence as a result.
	The new offence would also deal with the problem of traps. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West gave graphic examples of the kinds of traps that can be set. Whether or not such a trap amounted to an assault, it would certainly impede an emergency worker.

Angela Watkinson: When fire service personnel are injured as a result of an attack, that has a career-threatening effect on them because they need to have a high level of fitness and ability. Once that is lowered, it often means the end of their career in that service, as well as possibly reducing their opportunities for further employment; and they could be very long way from retirement age.

Eric Forth: The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said that he had waited 41 years for the chance to promote a private Member's Bill. He may well have set a record. I wish that most colleagues had to wait equally long, but that is probably too much to hope for.
	I, too, welcome the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. As has already become clear, it seeks to deal with a problem of which we are all becoming increasingly aware. I suppose that we are entitled to ask why something has not been done before, but that is often the case when we think about legislating in this place. I believe that the Bill seeks to deal with a genuine and urgent problem. However, the right hon. Gentleman himself says that it is not quite right. I wish that more Members would admit that on Second Reading, but they are usually reluctant to do so.
	I hope that the way in which the Bill proposes to import elements of Scots law into English law will not set a precedent because, given what I hear about what goes on north of the border in that that rather eccentric little Parliament that we unfortunately set up, I hope that we have no intention of following what they do, which seems to be increasingly socialistic, regulatory and eccentric, to say the least. I would rather that we avoided as much of that as possible. Nevertheless, it may be that it very occasionally does something moderately sensible and we should follow its example.
	The right hon. Gentleman was, typically, very open with us. I was intrigued to hear that he conducted negotiations with the Minister and her Department, as is sensible with any private Member's Bill, and that they had together rapidly concluded that the Bill in its current form probably should not go on to the statute book. It is not unusual for that negotiation to take place, but rather unusual for it to be so openly described. We are in the odd position of being asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill that is not in the form in which even its promoter wants it to get on to the statute book. He is saying to us, "Trust me, trust the Minister: when the Bill emerges from Committee, it really will be one that you will all want to support." Normally, I would be very reluctant to do anything of the kind, but since it is the right hon. Member for Swansea, West and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) whom we are talking about, on this occasion the House should be prepared to give them a degree of latitude. As has been pointed out, not least by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), we can of course pause during subsequent stages and consider the Bill in detail and at leisure, just to make absolutely sure that what the right hon. Gentleman has said today—and what the Minister will doubtless say subsequently—comes to pass.
	It is therefore not quite as odd as it may seem that we can look at the Bill's thrust and purpose—and at the objectives as set out by the right hon. Gentleman, and elaborated on today—make our judgment on that basis and agree that there is a real problem to be dealt with, that there is a real necessity for a Bill, and that this Bill is the vehicle to allow us to deal with it. Once we have listened to the Minister and the Bill has gone into Committee, we can look at it again on Report and Third Reading, and I hope, if I may say so helpfully to the right hon. Gentleman, that he does not leave that process too late or allow it to take too long. Time runs out rather quickly in the private Member's Bill process, so he should look at the calendar and bear it in mind that the other place will have to consider the Bill, as well. If it gets a Second Reading today—I am very confident that it will—I urge him to try to see it through Committee as quickly as possible and to bring it back here in good time, so that the House can consider it and get it into shape.
	All in all, this is an auspicious day. I again congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and I hope that he does not have to wait quite so long for his next private Member's Bill.

Adrian Bailey: The hon. Gentleman's evidence accords with my personal experience and other reports from elsewhere. The irony is that the enactment of the Bill might prompt a surge in the number of offences, but that might misrepresent what is happening. It is because it would be apparent that we are doing something about the problem that the reporting of offences might increase.
	My right hon. Friend West described a range of incidents that he had uncovered in his work on the Bill, and they are probably reflected in the experience of many other hon. Members. I have several examples from the west midlands. I intervened on my right hon. Friend to describe a bizarre, so-called happy slapping incident, and the Bill might offer a potential way to deal with such incidents. A couple of years ago, there was an incident at West Bromwich bus station when two female ambulance service personnel answered a distress call. On arriving, they found someone who was drunk and who proceeded to assault them physically. As if that were not bad enough, some more drunken young people weighed in on the assault, although it might have been thought that those two ladies would have enjoyed the support of the public in that critical situation. Not only was the assault a disturbing and traumatic experience for those two young ladies, but their services were lost to the ambulance service for a considerable time. It is an appalling reflection on our society that such assaults should go unprosecuted.
	We have also heard about incidents involving the fire service. In the west midlands, in 2004 there were 76 attacks on firefighters, and in 2005 there were no fewer than 143. We should be cautious about the use of such statistics, because they may reflect an increase in reporting and a greater awareness of the problem, but one incident in Coventry stands out, in which someone tried to drop a car battery on a firefighter from the 16th floor of a tower block. Happily, it missed, but one can only wonder at the vicious mindlessness of someone who is prepared to perpetrate such an attack. Public service workers who have to run such risks in carrying out their duties deserve our sympathy and support.
	My right hon. Friend has described the incidents in Manchester and Merseyside, so I shall not repeat them. Many of the incidents are a result of drink or drugs—mainly drink. We have discussed the potential impact of the changes in licensing laws on the problem and I happen to believe that dealing with such incidents is not only a matter of legislating to prevent them, but of legislating against antisocial behaviour in a range of areas. Although it is too early to make any definitive pronouncements, there is some evidence that the changes in licensing laws are having an impact, and that will need to be carefully monitored to see whether any amendment to the law is needed to prevent such incidents.
	The Government must also consider diversionary activities, especially for young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) commented on the attempts made by firefighters to visit schools to talk to young people. That could be taken further. If we could show young people how the emergency services work—within the health and safety requirements—it might provide a bonding effect in communities that could prevent some of the incidents that we have heard about today.

Barbara Keeley: I too welcome the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and I congratulate him on his campaign to raise the issues it addresses. These are important issues affecting our emergency workers; we have heard today how they suffer from the modern scourge of unwarranted assaults while they are trying to save lives.
	Although the measures in the Bill would evidently attract support from Members on both sides of the House, my support stems from the fact that Greater Manchester has one of the worst records for attacks on firefighters, so I shall focus on that branch of the emergency services. There have, unfortunately, been some 350 attacks on firefighters in Greater Manchester in the past two years. The Manchester Evening News has run an effective campaign to focus attention on the issue, and I commend the paper and its reporter, Neal Keeling, for doing so.
	It is clear that within Greater Manchester, Salford, which is one of the two local authorities covered by my Worsley constituency, has a technical problem with assaults and attacks on firefighters—a record that Salford's MPs would like to lose as soon as we can. A recent example from Salford highlighted in the Manchester Evening News concerned a fire engine being vandalised and burgled as the fire crew worked to rescue a woman and her 12-year-old son from their burning home. To damage a fire engine while the fire crew is working to save lives is seriously to risk loss of human life.
	Hon. Members will have read the articles and briefings cataloguing the increasingly severe nature of attacks on firefighters, involving, as we have heard today, many cases of arson and the setting of deliberate traps for fire crews. Yesterday, Councillor Fred Walker, Chair of the Greater Manchester fire authority, told me of the problems encountered by our fire crews. Fires have been deliberately set at the bottom of a terrace in a cul-de-sac. Fire crews raced to the scene and found that they had been cornered—bricks and other objects were thrown at them while they tried to put out fires. Also of great concern to Councillor Walker is the trend, described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West, of causing fires in abandoned buildings after laying traps specifically to hurt firefighters attending the scene.
	I find the callous and deliberate nature of those attacks absolutely chilling. It is vital that both our fire services and the police treat each incident of attacks and assaults on firefighters with the seriousness that the incidents deserve.
	As I have mentioned, Greater Manchester comes out badly in the statistics compiled by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as do Merseyside and the West Midlands. However, other areas such as London record a very low number of incidents, and there seems to be an issue of under-reporting.
	The fire service and elected Members serving in fire authorities also want to see attacks and assaults on fire crews treated seriously following prosecutions. There is seen to be a difficulty when a fine is imposed, given that most offenders are juveniles who do not have the means to pay a fine. It is welcome that antisocial behaviour orders are increasingly used to deal with those who attack firefighters; given that most of those concerned are juveniles, parenting orders also have a role to play.
	Councillor Walker told me that he would also like the courts to make increasing use of community penalties. There are a number of worthwhile community schemes, jointly run by the fire service and organisations such as the Prince's Trust. Greater Manchester fire service has a young firefighters scheme, which focuses on boys and young men in target areas where there is the most violence against crews. The aim is to work with the type of kids who are non-joiners—who do not engage with these services or with out-of-school activities. If those young people can understand the work of the fire services at a younger age, it can help dissuade them from getting involved in attacks on fire crews as they get older.
	The Prince's Trust also has a 13-week scheme for young people, run in conjunction with the fire service and football clubs such as Manchester United. Young people completing the scheme get a certificate of attainment, which can improve their employment prospects as the scheme is highly regarded by employers. I commend the fire service and the Prince's Trust for their community schemes, because those can both help young people and develop better support for the fire service within the community.
	Although I have focused on attacks on firefighters, attacks on doctors, nurses, paramedics and ambulance crews are of equal concern and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) for highlighting those concerns.
	It is right and timely that we should focus on the issues faced by our emergency workers. The Government's respect agenda gives us an additional framework so that Members of Parliament and councillors can work with the police and emergency workers to deal with the problems in their area; I fully intend to do so in my constituency.
	We also need better recording of incidents, and better follow-up of incidents by the police, resulting in prosecutions wherever possible. Finally, we need imaginative and appropriate sentencing to deter future attacks.

Nick Herbert: I think it is agreed across the House that we are discussing a very serious problem. Assaults on people at work in the emergency services and our public services are at an unacceptably high level. The latest figures show that in 2004–05 there were more than 11,000 physical assaults against national health service acute services staff. I know from just one of the NHS trusts serving my constituency that there were 163 physical assaults on staff in the last financial year, and 183 the year before. That brings home to me the scale of the problem. There were more than 1,300 physical assaults on NHS ambulance staff across the country in 2004–05.
	We also know that this is a growing problem. In my local ambulance service, violent incidents against staff increased from 221 in 2001–02 to 300 the following year. I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House will be able to relay the fact that this is not only an issue of great public concern but one that is clearly increasing, and therefore merits serious consideration of what further measures are necessary to tackle it.
	Hon. Members have expressed some objections to the Bill and it is worth our reflecting on them. Whereas there seems to be a consensus across the House that a new offence of impeding an emergency service worker is needed, reservations have been expressed—I suspect that we may hear them from the Minister—about creating a new offence of assaulting an emergency services worker. It is contended, first, that existing legislation is adequate to deal with such assaults; and, secondly, that a specific offence of assaulting an emergency worker or somebody working in public services might make it harder to prosecute those offences. It is argued against those views that, as has been pointed out, there is already a separate offence in Scotland, giving protection specifically to emergency service workers, passed by the Scottish Parliament last year, and there is of course an existing separate offence of assaulting a police officer.
	At one stage the Government did take the view that specific measures were necessary to deal with this problem. The Labour election manifesto said,
	"we will introduce tougher sentences. . . for those convicted of assaulting workers serving the public."
	But those tougher sentences did not feature in the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) moved amendments to create an offence of violence against a public servant, addressing broadly the same problem that this Bill seeks to address, the Government rejected that approach, preferring to rely on sentencing guidelines as expressed by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, that assaults on people working in the public sector are aggravated. It is true that the number of convictions for attacking, for example, NHS staff has risen. However, we must consider whether Parliament needs to send a stronger signal both to express concern about assaults on emergency service workers and to deter future offences.
	My judgment is that we need to send such a signal, partly because of the increase in the number of offences and the scale of the problem that exists and partly because, as has been pointed out, the effect of assaulting or impeding an emergency service worker could put the public at risk if those workers are taken out of action. So harm is being done not just to the people who work in the services, but to the public broadly. Therefore, on public policy grounds, a specific offence or an aggravated offence to stop that may well be justified.
	I am not persuaded by what I have heard so far about the Government's reasons for rejecting a specific offence of assaulting an emergency services worker or, indeed, of creating some kind of aggravated offence, not least because Parliament has accepted already that certain offences should be considered as aggravated—for instance, racially motivated attacks—and it has proved perfectly possible to prosecute people for those offences. I am not sure whether the obstacles that people sometimes claim will be placed in the way of the specific offence are necessarily viable, but I will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say.
	After examining the Bill and listening to what the right hon. Member for Swansea, West and other Members said, I share the consensus view that these issues should be examined in Committee. People who work in public services do a vital job, often in difficult circumstances, and we all rely on them. The House should send a very clear signal that we believe that assaults on ambulance staff, firefighters, doctors and nurses are totally unacceptable. For that reason, we support the Bill. I hope that it will receive a Second Reading and that these detailed issues will be examined in Committee, so that the precise need for and wording of additional measures can be scrutinised. I very much hope that the Government will share what is clearly a great deal of support for the Bill on both sides of the House.

Fiona Mactaggart: We need to be honest about what influences 16-year-olds' behaviour. The hon. Gentleman is right that guidance from the Sentencing Guidelines Council does not tend to make much difference to them, but I am not convinced that the existence of an aggravating factor does, either. Sentencing can have an impact if it has serious and clear consequences. It is important to use education and community sentences. We must ensure that the message that we have been sharing with each other during the debate is not kept in the confines of the Chamber, but spread more widely by campaigns such as the "protect our heroes" campaign, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) and is run by the Manchester Evening News, and the respect campaign. The message must go out to young people that emergency workers could save their mums, families, or friends. We must decide the most effective technique that will ensure that people who are tempted to commit such an offence are deterred—that is what all of us want—and that those who commit the offence are effectively prosecuted and convicted.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am, of course, willing to give those people extra protection—the debate is about the most effective mechanism for doing that. If the hon. Gentleman has listened carefully, he will have heard my commitment to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West to work with the Sentencing Guidelines Council to ensure that the sentencing guidelines mechanism, which does not exist in Scotland, is used to ensure a more effective penalty.
	Clear evidence exists to show that a separate offence does not necessarily produce lengthier sentences. There is a specific offence of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty and in some ways, it is common sense to have such an offence. Police are different from other emergency service workers because obstructing or assaulting a police officer is often part of a pattern of criminality. Someone who tries to impede a police officer might be trying to prevent their own capture and conviction and that is one of the reasons for the separate offence.
	However, let us consider the sentencing for that offence, which carries the same maximum penalty as that suggested in the Bill. The penalty is the same as that for common assault. In the past two years, however, those sentenced to custody for assaulting a police officer have received slightly lower sentences than those convicted of common assault. In 2003, the average sentence for assaulting a police officer was 2.8 months as opposed to three months for common assault. In 2004, the average sentence for assaulting a police officer was 2.9 months compared with 3.1 months for common assault. I concede that the differences are not large but they show that a specific offence does not guarantee a more effective penalty.
	Let us not split hairs—let us focus on what we agree about. Hon. Members from all parties want someone who is convicted of assault on an emergency service worker to receive a sentence that reflects the seriousness with which the House views such an offence. That is common ground.

Fiona Mactaggart: It would, and the point my hon. Friend raises relates to the biggest gap in the law. There is no offence involving protection from being impeded or obstructed available to ambulance workers, and he has given a particularly gross example of impeding and obstructing. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West for his generous offer to ensure that the Bill could provide us with an opportunity to deal with that lacuna in the law, but I think I owe an explanation to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have asked how I can ensure that the seriousness of assaults on emergency services workers can properly be reflected through the sentencing guidelines procedure.
	The Sentencing Advisory Panel has already started the consultation on draft guidelines covering sentencing for all violent crimes against the person, so, as I have already said, we are in the middle of that process. Sentencing guidelines will be issued in due course, following the consultation and consideration by the council. We expect them to reiterate that the victim being a public servant is a serious aggravating factor in any offence of violence and to explain that attacks on any victim who is serving the public can have a serious impact on the ability to deliver the public service. In this example, that specifically increases the seriousness of the offence.

Richard Younger-Ross: I am trying to be helpful. What the Minister has just said is reassuring. However, I have still not heard enough about why an aggravated offence does not work, and why she is taking this line of argument. Rather than prolong this debate and that point, however, will she agree to meet me and the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) before the Committee stage—hoping that we get that far—to go through that argument? It is our intention to help the Government introduce this legislation, but we wish to test those arguments.

Fiona Mactaggart: We can do that in Committee, and I am happy to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentlemen. Having set up the Sentencing Guidelines Council, we should use it as effectively as we can, and I happy to discuss with them how it works. It is a relatively new animal, and not everyone is completely familiar with it. In my view, the experience of the offence under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 is significant. It is interesting that this debate has focused on the fire services, which currently have an offence that is quite complex and has recently been reiterated in law. There have been difficulties, however, in securing effective prosecutions. Part of the reason for that is the difficulty of demonstrating what constitutes an offence of this kind. We need a fairly simple definition of the offence, while also ensuring that it can be dealt with by means of a sentence.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Minister does not require the assistance or protection of the Chair. I can inform the House that the note passed to me was drawing my attention to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) was trying to intervene, because I had not noticed. I shall be happy to pass the note to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.

Fiona Mactaggart: The right hon. Gentleman is one of the great conspiracy theorists of the House, but to suggest that "Take Jim Dowd" is code for "Hurry up and sit down" is pretty ridiculous.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West made an important point. We all agree that we want convictions for these offences, but the Government see two potential barriers. One relates to determination to proceed, on which action is being taken. The NHS security authority is one example. I am happy to give a commitment to the House; I have already spoken to the Attorney-General about the possibility of improving guidance to the Crown Prosecution Service.
	The other barrier is the fact that proving the offence is being made more complicated. We have the opportunity to create a very simple offence of impeding. What we do not want is a series of narrow, specific offences involving aggravating factors, which will merely mean that more must be proved in court. We need a simple, straightforward definition. We all oppose assaults, whoever the victim may be. We all agree, however, that an assault on an emergency worker has a particular quality, which we want sentences to reflect. We do not want to have to prove more; we want an assault to be an assault to be an assault. Assaults on emergency workers nevertheless have that special quality.
	I am finding it difficult to persuade the House of my view, but I hope that I shall be able to do so. It is an important point of principle that it is best to provide adequate guidelines on sentencing, rather than increasing the number of facts that the prosecution must prove in order to secure a conviction. The more factors that are added to the law, the more barriers the prosecution must hop over. It should be a straightforward process that an assault leads to conviction, but an assault in the circumstances specified in the Bill should have more serious consequences than an assault in other circumstances. However, we should not put extra burdens on the prosecution by adding to the things that it has to prove: the presence of an aggravating factor and other particular circumstances. I feel strongly about the matter. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West for his generosity in agreeing that we should focus on the big gap that exists and use the tools that we already have to deal with serious assault.
	It was not possible to do that in Scotland. The reason is that Scotland does not have the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Scotland had to create specific offences. It has slightly different sentencing mechanisms. The way that our sentencing system is constructed means that the nine-month sentence is not available. We are trying to create simple, straightforward law—I am glad to have the endorsement of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who said that it is quite a good thing to try to be simple and straightforward—and to ensure that the seriousness of this particular offence is taken into account.
	I hope that we can achieve consensus across the House. I think that we agree on the outcome that we want. I am prepared to spend time following this debate to explain and to discuss with Opposition Members the way in which the Sentencing Guidelines Council is capable of operating and the powers that it has, so that we can agree that that part of the Bill is not essential.
	However, there is a part of the Bill that is essential. That is to deal with obstructing or impeding an emergency service worker who is responding to an emergency. There are already offences of obstruction, just as there of assault, but they do not cover everyone or every activity; it is not necessary. I have referred to the firefighters offence. There is also a police officers offence, but there is no offence that covers obstruction of other emergency workers such as ambulance workers or members of the coastguard, who deal with emergencies offshore. We have identified that as a gap in the legislation that covers emergency workers. It is the only gap that we have identified. Other matters can be dealt with within the framework of existing legislation.
	If hon. Members look at the respect action plan, they will see that we specifically identified the possible need for an offence of obstructing an ambulance worker. We said that we would consider introducing such an offence, so we specifically welcome that part of the Bill. We believe that it would be a step in the right direction to ensure that deliberately obstructing an ambulance worker is an offence. As I have outlined, the offence of obstructing a firefighter is not as simple and clear as it could be, so we think that making it simpler and easier to use would be an improvement. Therefore, the Bill has something to offer. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for introducing it. I was glad that he said that he will table amendments in Committee to ensure that the issue of obstructing emergency workers responding to an emergency can become the core of the Bill. There are real benefits to be gained from that.
	In addition to such an offence, we need to recognise that there is more to do. As well as having an offence of obstructing an emergency worker in responding to an emergency, we need to try to prevent that offence from occurring. We need to ensure that behaviour that often begins with exuberance and high spirits does not escalate into obstruction and violence. As we have heard during the debate, that has often happened.

Fiona Mactaggart: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been struck by the fact that the fire service has welcomed not only the agreement that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West and I have reached as regards how to proceed with the Bill, but the elements of the respect action plan that are about dealing with the growing problem of antisocial behaviour, which can blight areas and make life very difficult for some people. The respect action plan sets out our goals and reiterates the need to tackle antisocial behaviour by dealing with disrespect in every walk of life. Tackling disrespect in general can often have a specific effect in a particular area. We need to focus not only on disrespect towards emergency workers but general issues such as school discipline and attendance. We must involve schools and parents in tackling disrespectful behaviour that results from truancy and inadequate supervision of excluded children.
	We want to ensure that young people have an opportunity to make a positive impact on society. They might do things such as creating traps because they want adventure and to do bold and brave things. They do not usually have those opportunities, so they take these very antisocial measures. We as Government, and all of us, need to ensure that there are constructive, challenging activities for young people, with appropriate opportunities to get involved in sport or volunteering, for example, so that they feel that they can have an impact on society in a positive way, not by being destructive.

Fiona Mactaggart: Yes, we are having discussions with a lot of people about the respect agenda. I have mentioned schools and parents. We must ensure that we help to support families who are in difficulty. The respect action plan establishes projects to work intensively with the most problematic families. The hon. Member for Upminster highlighted the role that parents have to play. Respect must be promoted right across Government. We must look at how every programme and funding or inspection regime contributes to dealing with the problem. Neighbourhoods must get the power to ensure that local services deal quickly and effectively with disrespectful behaviour by a minority—for example, by cleaning up graffiti. We must have speedy, visible reparative justice through measures that extend the powers available to deal with crime and antisocial behaviour by getting young people involved in sorting out the problems that they create.
	The respect agenda is not only about the public services but about the public realm. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley referred to the Manchester Evening News campaign. The media are an important part of the public realm. I applaud the "protect our heroes" campaign, which is promoting the respect agenda by highlighting destructive behaviour toward Manchester's firefighters. Through that campaign, the Manchester Evening News has done a substantial amount to help make the city's firefighters safer.
	We should recognise that fire and rescue services have already introduced measures to tackle attacks on firefighters. We have spoken to them about this issue and they have been encouraged to report incidents, so that the police and prosecuting authorities can make prosecutions where appropriate. Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate requires fire and rescue services to complete a monthly return on the number of assaults, so that the figures can accurately reflect the problem on the ground. Members have indeed pointed out that we need better statistics to drive effective action. Fire and rescue services are also introducing measures such video cameras in cabs of appliances in order to help identify offenders.

Fiona Mactaggart: Our aim is to try to construct a simple offence. I have described at length the difficulty if an offence is complicated; for example, where we say, "These people are in but those people are out". In Committee, I hope that we can amend the obstruction provisions so that an emergency service worker responding to an emergency will be covered by the obstruction offence. That is where there is a big gap. A nurse accompanying an emergency team would certainly be covered, but the offence would not be designed for circumstances inside a hospital where it is much easier to control the situation. However, we can examine that point in Committee.
	People who go to emergencies to protect us are extremely vulnerable, as Members have made clear. That vulnerability is what we want to deal with; those workers are vulnerable to obstruction and the consequences of obstructing them can be serious. The resources available to workers attending an emergency are not as substantial as those for people treating patients in a hospital; for example, there may be security staff, although it is of course a great pity that most of our A and E departments require security staff. Teams responding to an emergency are very vulnerable and obstruction of them can have serious and substantial consequences. That is the main thing we have to deal with and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West for allowing us to use the Bill to protect people against that obstruction.
	The Manchester Evening News campaign and other campaigns across the country show that there is a huge public appetite for dealing with the situation.

Fiona Mactaggart: Absolutely. It is a complete outrage that people who serve the public should be subject to the type of behaviour that has been described in the House today. I shall be proud to work with my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West and, I hope, with Members on both sides of the House to make sure that our emergency workers are safer in future.
	If we are clear about making a real difference where there is that gap in the law, if we do not over-complicate the issue and if we work with the tools that are already available, we can make those heroes—who save lives and on whom our society depends—safer. If we achieve that, we should all feel proud.
	My speech has roamed far, partly because I wanted to be generous about taking interventions, for a particular reason. I hope that we can gain the consent of Members on both sides of the House to enable the Bill to deal with a gap in the law.
	Our debate has highlighted the increasing and tragic dangers faced by our emergency workers, but we will do them no favours if we create a law that raises expectations but achieves little in practice because it is flawed. Let us be honest: that has happened before. The Government cannot therefore support the additional, not necessary, offence of assault. The law already exists to pursue a range of assault offences, and to create specific offences would make for complicated law, which risks having unintended consequences. Sentencing guidelines ensure that the courts must hand out tougher sentences for those whose victims are serving the public.
	I have outlined the non-legislative measures whereby we can deal with these offences and, we hope, prevent them from happening in the first place. However, there is a gap in the law in relation to obstructing an emergency worker. There is no offence of obstruction in relation to ambulance workers, and I have been able to show the House that the present offence in relation to firefighters does not work as well as we would wish. I am therefore glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West has agreed that he will introduce amendments to deal with this issue in Committee and I look forward to working in Committee with him, and with Members across the House, to bring back on Report a Bill that deals with less but deals with it well. When we come to do that, we can all feel very proud of ourselves indeed and we can ensure that those people, those heroes, upon whom we depend for our lives, will be safer in future.
	I am pleased to support the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that that statement is due to be made to the House today. I have no knowledge about when it will be produced, but it should be before the House today, and I trust that that will be the case.

David Curry: My right hon. Friend has taken the words out of my mouth, and it is perfectly possible to reform or modernise the rules without either the intention or the consequence of damaging the industry. Scotland requires full planning permission for the ground-based masts under 15 m, and there is a debate in Wales on which way to go. Indeed, in July 2004 the Scottish Executive commissioned from the university of Dundee a study entitled "Evaluation of Revised Planning Controls Over Telecommunications Development" on the consequences of the changes in Scotland.
	I shall not quote from that study, but it states that the strengthening of the planning rules has been no impediment to the mobile phone operators, nor has it caused a burden for Scottish councils that they have not been able to discharge. It is right that within the quasi-federal system in the UK, different polices are being applied in all manner of regions across the country.
	The Bill has three core provisions, which are familiar and inherited from the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. That, I think, was put together with a great deal of help from the technical expertise available in the House. The provisions are the precautionary principle, which must accompany the planning applications; the identification of the area and the range of the beam of the greatest intensity, as well as the characteristics of that beam, which then become part of the planning consideration; and the ability of local authorities to remove masts on land used for medical or educational purposes without compensation.
	I repeat to the Minister that the Bill represents an invitation to negotiate and engage. We have a common interest in putting to rest vexations and persistent grievances. I know he will agree that we need a process of identification and analysis, followed by the addressing of the issues before us. His consultation document has started that process.
	The Minister could stand up and say, "We've got it under control. We've had the consultation and the document has been published. We envisage new guidance and we'll consult on that. Then we will have dealt with the issue." I would say that there is a deep suspicion over this, which is not healthy. We need to proceed in such a transparent way that the industry feels its future is secure, and the constant local guerrilla wars no longer have to be fought. The public must not feel threatened, intimidated or taken advantage of. Local authorities must not feel overburdened.
	The best way to achieve all that is through the traditional procedure of taking the Bill into Committee and being open in the negotiations, to try to achieve what the Minister and I both want. At the end of the day, he and I will have a great deal less traffic from my constituents about concerns that I know are very real to them. Also, the industry will not feel that it is guilty of some local trespass all the time.

Andrew Stunell: I am delighted to support the Bill. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) generously gave me credit for an earlier version, and indeed I consider this an important subject. I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for the measured way in which he put his case. He made very clear that his Bill did not constitute an attempt to disable the mobile phone industry or to close mobile phone networks. I do not want to do that either. I have a mobile phone, as the House will unfortunately have heard earlier today, so I cannot possibly say anything against them. However, I am glad that the issue has returned to the House. I hope that the Minister will not just be sympathetic, as I know he always is, and will not just be emollient, as I know he always is. I hope that he will say "Let us give the Bill some serious examination at the next stage", because that is plainly what the public want and what Members want.
	The problem goes back to the Telecommunications Act 1984, which—as the right hon. Gentleman explained very clearly—exempted masts from planning rules, and from the subsequent reiteration by Governments that all matters relating to health were subject to national Government rather than local government decisions. That means that all health aspects have been removed from consideration, as have a wide range of base stations.
	The difficulties have been compounded by the oppressive contracts that mobile phone companies arrange with those who permit masts to be placed on their property. That first came to my attention when a secondary school in my area, Marple Hall, agreed to a mast being placed on its property in the early days of telecommunications masts. Following a fair amount of protest from parents and others in the neighbourhood, the school rescinded its decision, only to find that the contract that it had signed did not entitle it to have the mast removed. It had signed away its rights to such an extent that the company could install any replacement mast that it chose, and could carry out any repairs, maintenance or alterations that it wished to undertake. In fact, the school had completely forgone its property rights.
	In another case in my constituency, a mast was alleged to be less than 15 m high and thus not to require permission. Again there were bitter objections. Someone went to the trouble of measuring the mast, which proved to be not less than 15 m high, but 16 m high. The local authority took action against the company for installing a mast above the permitted height, on valid planning grounds. Those grounds were challenged by the company. The Secretary of State's inspector upheld the council's decision, and ordered that the mast be removed. The company's response was very straightforward: it said "We will take the 16 m mast down, cut 1 m off and put it back." It is that sort of response—waving two fingers at the law and the intention of the law—that has so deeply angered Members and their constituents.
	The right hon. Gentleman covered the health issue very well. It is a question not of manifest and apparent danger, but of a suspicion that it will come to light in future that there were hazards that were not taken properly into account. That is what Sir William Stewart addressed in his two reports.
	I hope the House will note that the two other parties in the House are committed to changing the present system. During the debate on the earlier version of the Bill on 18 March, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker)—speaking, I assume, on behalf of the Conservative party—said
	"the next Conservative Government will require all phone masts, regardless of size and proposed site, to be subject to the full planning permission process".
	I am delighted that, at least then, that was Conservative policy. I am not sure whether the policy has been subjected to a U-turn or has been reviewed in the meantime; perhaps the Minister will tell us later.
	In that same debate, some election literature from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne), who is a Labour Member, was read into the record. He said that Labour would
	"do everything we can to ensure that there are no more phone masts near schools and hospitals".—[Official Report, 18 March 2005; Vol. 432, c. 570, 568.]
	I concede that that was only election literature and that, like manifesto promises on ID cards and other matters, it could have changed since, but I hope that the Minister will say that that is the intention of the Labour Government.

Celia Barlow: I, too, want to begin by thanking the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) for introducing this Bill, which deals with an area of planning policy that is challenging to policy makers and is important to many people. The issues to which the placement of mobile phone masts gives rise are significant to many people, and particularly to those in my Hove and Portslade community. I have received a lot of correspondence on this subject, and I have been approached in person by many concerned residents and been made aware of a number of local campaigns. Several forums have recently been held, at which all the stakeholders involved—members of the local authority, residents and representatives of the telecommunications industry—engaged in reasonable debate. As would be expected, the meetings rarely reach a consensus, but they are highly productive. The educative value of the meetings has led to more informed debate on the subject in my constituency. During the election campaign, I also made a commitment to the people of Hove and Portslade to investigate the concerns about mobile phone masts and to act on them when appropriate. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so today.
	In 2002, the Government, in conjunction with the mobile phone industry, pledged £7.4 million for research into the safety of mobile phones. I am pleased also that the Government continue to remain committed to investing resources into examining the impact of mobile phone technology on our everyday lives. Ministers are also committed to reviewing current planning procedure for mobile phone masts—a policy that I wholeheartedly support. I applaud right hon. and hon. Members for taking seriously the concerns of our constituents about the issue and I am satisfied that public health remains paramount in the consideration of any current or future policy.
	However, given the regulatory framework on the placing of telephone masts, the public still have cause for confusion and concern. That is clearly supported by the continued presence of the issue at the top of many people's local agenda, as many hon. Members are well aware. Indeed, the interesting article written recently by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon for his local paper confirms that that is true for Members on both sides of the House. For example, there is a consensus among the scientific community that mobile phone emissions pose no direct health risk to users of phones or those situated near masts, but masts are no longer situated near schools on the recommendation of the Stewart report. If the Government believe the Stewart Report evidence that phone masts pose no threat to public health, why recommend such a measure? Such contradictions have fostered hostility towards phone masts in the general public, who sense uncertainty among policy makers on the issue.
	It is understandable that concerned constituents, many of whom have young children, seek clarity and reassurance on the issue. It is important that we are able to work together across the House to reach the clarity and consensus that is needed on the matter. Mobile phones have undoubtedly become an essential part of everyday life. It is important that we are able to strike a balance between the needs of many to use mobile phones and the suspected potential health concerns for some of our constituents.
	During my surgeries, many constituents have raised the issue of the need for the further installation of the more powerful 3G telephone masts, which has formed part of the debate today. Again, it is a question of balance. One possible solution to the problem is the suggestion that the number of mobile phone relay stations could be reduced by having mobile phone companies share potential installation sites. I am pleased that the Government are looking at that option further as it would greatly reduce the need for other mast sites throughout the country.
	The other area that should be investigated before any further legislation is made is the point at which perception of risk to general health translates into actual damage to health caused by the stress of the installation of a telecommunications mast in the vicinity of people's homes or schools. It is not sufficient to say that such effects are merely subjective, and I encourage the Government to consider the effects that constant stress can have on a family with young children. As a mother myself, I understand the concerns that other parents may have about the health of their families. However, that is not to say that my constituents do not understand the ever-growing need for mobile technology in our day-to-day life.
	My constituents are understandably concerned when scientific reports recommend restricted phone use by younger children. My constituents do not believe that such recommendations tally with the telecommunications industry assertion that there is nothing to fear from the emissions caused by masts. My constituents' concern is that the scientific evidence gathered so far is not conclusive. Although the Stewart report stated that there was no threat to health, the recommendation that installation sites should not be near schools sends parents a contradictory message. Many of my constituents conclude that if it is not recommended that mobile phone masts be installed near a school, it should not be acceptable for such a mast to be erected in a residential street where many young children live. Whether or not there is a scientifically accurate basis for not installing mobile phone masts near schools, it is on that apparent contradiction that many of my constituents have formulated their stance on the issue.
	The report has continued to cause much stress and anxiety, which could in certain instances lead to tangible medical conditions. Constituents' concerns are real and deep-felt and cause genuine distress to all those affected. As legislators, it is our obligation to take their worries into consideration, and I am pleased that Labour-led Brighton and Hove city council has always given high priority to the concerns of local residents.
	I am also greatly encouraged by the Government's continued commitment to that field of research following publication of the Stewart report—the most comprehensive study to be commissioned by any Government in the developed world. The report states that there are gaps in our scientific knowledge about mobile phones, and I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister and the mobile phone industry to continue their commitment to pursue an active and forward-looking programme of research to seek answers to those gaps in our knowledge.
	On 3G telephone mast installation, I recommend that we err on the side of caution, especially when children are concerned. We already know that our children are more susceptible than adults to the effects of mobile phone emissions. It is, therefore, reasonable that we take a more considered approach to the further installation of the new generation of more powerful 3G telephone masts.
	I am eager not to take up too much time, as other Members want to speak, but I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to raise my concerns on this most important of issues. The health of our children should be brought more to the fore, as it transcends the boundaries of party politics. As their elected representatives, it is important that we maintain a dialogue with our constituents and that the results of further scientific studies are made more easily accessible to those who are affected the most.
	Again, I highlight my appreciation for the Government's continued commitment to examining the health concerns of those affected by mobile phone masts, and I once more express my appreciation to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon for initiating this timely debate.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I thank him for making it into the Chamber in order to do so. It is vital that we arm local authorities with the necessary powers to deal with such issues appropriately, and that should start here in the Chamber.
	I should like to go further than the Bill. If it is debated in Committee, I shall be keen to pursue a new clause to consider the possibility of introducing a single mast network. That may seem a little strange at first. However, we have a single network for water, but people can apply to many companies for their water. There is a single network for domestic gas, but people can get their gas supply from a number of companies. The same applies to landlines—whether from BT, NTL or any other service provider—as they all share the same system. Why cannot we have the same process for mobile phone masts? That happens in other countries; it could be easily introduced here.
	Clearly, there would be some technical challenges, and such a change may well have to wait until the fourth generation roll-out of masts. However, we must start somewhere, the Bill could be the place to do so. I should certainly like such a new clause to include the idea that the Government would report back to Parliament on a feasibility study to find out whether the technical hurdles that would be encountered could be overcome.
	Concern has been raised about the cost of the licences. Clearly, the company representatives to whom I have spoken seem very keen to pursue the issue. Of course, they want to protect the money that they put in during the licensing auctions that took place a number of years ago.
	It is worth remembering that more than 100 years ago we had a rather confusing telegraph system, with independent companies set up in London and a spaghetti network of wires going across the city's rooftops. Eventually, the Government said, "This is too much"—the sprawl of wires was getting out of control—"Let's have a single system." That is exactly what we could have with the introduction of one network for mobile phone masts, thus reducing the number of mobile masts by about two thirds. That gets to the very heart of the problem that we are discussing.
	In conclusion, I fully support the Bill. It would provide local authorities with more power, which they require, and local residents with more say in the planning process. I hope that it will allow us to take the first steps in considering a nationwide mast network.

Nick Herbert: I, too, will be very brief. Like other hon. Members, I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about the Bill. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on introducing the Bill. Mobile phones are important to all our lives, but the growth in their use has, of course, been phenomenal. There are more than 62 million mobile phone subscribers now, compared with 9 million when the Government first came to power in 1997, and 85 per cent. of households now have mobile phones.
	The background to the Bill is a concern of which all hon. Members are aware from their constituencies. In the eyes of our constituents, masts can affect people's health, particularly when they are sited close to schools and medical facilities, without any proper consultation with local communities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon and other Members have explained, the problem is that the siting of such masts is effectively outside the planning process. No proper consultation with communities therefore takes place and people feel disfranchised from the decisions that are taken. The Government's own expert committee urged that a precautionary approach be taken to the siting of masts. That is reflected in the Bill, which would ensure that new masts—not existing ones—would be subject to full planning permission and that health considerations could be taken into account when applications were considered.
	The precise detail of the proposals will need to be examined and scrutinised—I hope in Committee. We will need to consider their impact on the number of applications and the extension of 3G coverage. The number of planning applications would certainly increase. All those aspects can be dealt with.
	The principle of the Bill—that local communities should be properly consulted over the location of masts—must be right. For too long there has been a creeping attitude that the Government know best and a process whereby too many decisions are, in effect, taken out of local control and away from local communities. We have seen that in a number of areas of our lives where the say of local communities has been taken away and responsibility has been moved to a regional level—in relation to the police service, the fire service, planning decisions and so on—or to Government. The idea that is it wrong to consult local communities and involve them in such decisions and that no objections to the siting of masts may be brooked simply because the Government have judged that mobile phones are good for us all is profoundly anti-democratic.
	The Labour manifesto for the last election stated, perfectly reasonably:
	"People want a sense of control over their own neighbourhood."
	If that is to be adhered to and applied, the Government should support the principle behind the Bill and at least be willing to examine the Bill and discuss with us in Committee how it might operate.
	Concern about the issue will grow. One suggestion is that 3G technology will require up to four times as many masts as at present. That would mean 135,000 more masts in the country—more than 200 for every constituency. The issue will not go away and it is no longer acceptable to sweep the concerns of local people aside. We must be capable of achieving a sensible balance.
	I have left plenty of time in which the Minister can respond without talking out the Bill. If he is still speaking at 2.30 pm, the House will know that the Government's real intention is not to support the Bill. The Bill has had support from hon. Members on both sides of the House and I hope that the Government will therefore allow it to go into Committee so that it can be discussed further.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on securing a place in the ballot for private Members' Bills and using the opportunity to debate this significant topic. As he knows, the subject is important to the Government and is of widespread interest and concern to hon. Members and the public.
	The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) suggested that there was going to be subterfuge by talking out the Bill, but we are quite clear that we do not support the Bill—we are quite happy to say that. However, where the Government agree with the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon—I commend him on the tone in which he introduced the Bill—is in recognising that we have to move the situation on and that there is concern and fear because of a perceived health risk, although all the evidence shows that there is no such risk. I will come on to that. I apologise to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs if it will cause him offence if I am still talking at 2.30 pm, but I have a lot of information to put across.
	We published our latest report this week, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon was generous enough to acknowledge. It runs to some 40 pages, but expresses matters concisely and precisely. We are advised that the latest data from the research commissioned as a result of the paper will be with us by the end of April. We are determined to move the issue on in order to reassure the public and deal with the legitimate concerns that are being expressed by hon. Members. I accept entirely that this matter will not go away. The Government are not making any attempt to say that the issue does not need attention. It does need attention, we are giving it attention and we will give it a lot more in the months ahead.
	Before I get into the substantive matters addressed in the clauses, I should like to set this discussion in the wider context, which has been referred to piecemeal by hon. Members over the past couple of hours. It has been one of the Government's objectives to create the most dynamic, competitive communications industries in the world, ensuring universal access to a choice of diverse services of the highest quality and that citizens and consumers are safeguarded.
	The UK is at the forefront of the service provision of electronic communications technology. It is estimated that, in 2004, the UK communications sector contributed £47.4 billion to the UK economy, forming about 4.1 per cent. of UK GDP. However, it is a fact that if we want our mobile phones to work, there is a need to be within a few hundred metres of a base station. To enable us to send and receive signals from our handsets, some sort of relaying apparatus is needed. The technology of base stations means that each one can handle only a certain number of calls. The more that people use mobile phones, the greater the need for base stations.
	The coverage of a cellular system is provided by a network of radio base stations, each with a certain coverage area or cell. A base station is a facility that provides transmission and reception for radio systems. There are three types of cells. Macro cells provide the main structure for the base station network. The base stations for macro cells have power outputs of tens of watts and communicate with phones up to about 22 miles distant. Micro cells are used to infill and improve the main network, especially where the volume of calls is high. They are sited in places such as airports, railway stations and shopping malls. The micro cell base stations emit less power than those for macro cells and their range is considerably shorter. Pico cells have a lower power output than that of micro cells—it is a few watts—and are generally sited inside buildings.
	Communication systems are obviously driven by demand. Increase in the use of mobile phones has meant that operators are continually expanding their networks to accommodate customer requirements of service and quality. However, the base stations need to be where the users are. Consequently, the greatest need for base station sites is usually in built-up areas where there is the highest density of mobile users, and within a mile or two of main roads, where demands on network capacity are greatest.
	The size of each cell is determined by a number of factors, but particularly the number of subscribers expected to require access to the system during the peak usage period. In areas where call traffic density exceeds the limits of the network, capacity can be expanded either by introducing new sites—macro or micro cells—or by splitting existing cells, thus effectively doubling capacity. Cell splitting requires the erection of additional antennae at the base station site or a new base station site.
	The location of transmitter antennae is important. Obviously, signals from one cell will interfere with nearby cells on the same frequency. To avoid blind spots from buildings and hills, antennae must usually be placed high up. In urban areas antennae are often best placed on existing buildings. However, in rural areas, a lattice mast is often required. Technically, that is all a mast is—a tower structure.
	There are currently about 45,000 base stations in the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to a higher figure, and I am sure that he has the latest data, given his research for this morning's debate. The Mobile Operators Association estimates that the number of base stations will increase to at least 50,000 by the end of 2007. That does not mean 50,000 sites or 50,000 masts, because many of these base stations will be installed on existing structures or be collocated with the apparatus of another operator. If we do not have this infrastructure the handsets will not work at the service level that users expect.
	Despite the undoubted popularity of mobile phones, however, there is significant disquiet about the infrastructure necessary to support them. A proposal for a new mobile phone mast is often accompanied by protests and objections, sometimes with justification and sometimes without, often because local communities are not sufficiently well informed.
	The Government are sensitive to the public's concerns about the mobile network infrastructure. We acknowledge that many hon. Members and the public generally are concerned about the health and environmental impact of mobile phone base station developments. We recognise that there is a balance to be struck between the regulations and guidelines that facilitate the growth of the mobile phone network and the need to keep its environmental impact to a minimum and address public health concerns. The right hon. Gentleman covered those aspects widely in his introductory speech. The Government believe that the current arrangements broadly strike the right balance.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I acknowledge that there are anomalies around the country and I hope to consider the detail of protection and improvements to procedures that relate to planning controls and consultation arrangements for local communities later. However, the hon. Gentleman will have to be patient for a little because I want to deal with the impact on health.
	First, let me assure hon. Members that the Government take seriously the need to protect the public from health risks. Indeed, we have spent considerable amounts of time and money on researching whether mobile phone technologies present a genuine health risk. Approximately 25,000 articles have been published in the past 30 years about the biological effects and medical applications of non-ionising radiation. Scientific knowledge about the matter is arguably more extensive than for most chemicals.
	In the United Kingdom, we have held two major reviews of the total experimental and epidemiological evidence for health effects due to exposure to radio-frequency transmissions, including those associated with mobile telephone handsets and base stations.
	The first report was published in 2000 by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones and is commonly known as the Stewart report. It concluded that
	"the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of the guidelines."
	However, the Government acknowledge that it also said
	"that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to radiofrequency radiation even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach".
	The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) referred to that.
	Part of the precautionary approach recommended by the group was the adoption of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiological Protection— ICNIRP—guidelines for public exposure. The Government have introduced standards to ensure that all base stations meet those guidelines, which are five times tougher about public exposure than the National Radiological Protection Board guidelines, which were used previously. Those guidelines are adopted in the majority of other countries in the European Union.
	The second major review of the total experimental and epidemiological evidence was undertaken by the then National Radiological Protection Board advisory group on non-ionising radiation and was published in January 2004. That report fulfils the recommendation of the first Stewart report that the issue should be reviewed in three years. It also concluded:
	"Exposure levels from living near to mobile base stations are extremely low and the overall evidence indicates that they are unlikely to pose a risk to health".
	Seventeen similar reviews have been conducted internationally. They were undertaken by organisations such as France's Commission for Consumer Safety, the Health Council of the Netherlands, the Swedish State Radiation Protection Authority, the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel, the ICNIRP and the World Health Organisation. They all concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any adverse health consequences from exposure to low-level electromagnetic fields.
	The Government are not complacent, however, and we have established the mobile telephone health research—MTHR—programme, which is costing around £8.8 million and is funded jointly by Government and industry. The programme is being directed and overseen by an independent management committee led by Professor Lawrie Challis OBE and is made up of leading UK and international experts. It is carrying out research into the effects of mobile phone technology on health and encompasses emerging radio-based technologies. The process will ensure that Government and the public are kept up to date with new research findings.
	The programme management committee has been responsible for the selection of proposals to be funded. The programme is funding only research of the highest quality that meets the research requirements suggested by the World Health Organisation and follows its criteria for good laboratory practice. It fits with similar work done in other countries and with the EU framework projects in this area. The programme has funded 25 projects so far.
	Work already funded by the programme includes studies of mobile phone users to investigate whether the use of mobile phones can affect the risk of developing brain cancer or leukaemia, studies investigating the effects of mobile phone signals on brain function and the behaviour of exposed people, studies examining how mobile phone signals could produce biological effects as evidenced by changes in exposed cells, and a study investigating ways in which mobile phones affect the performance of drivers.
	On 20 March 2003 the MTHR announced the first proposal to be supported, which is concerned with mobile phone base stations and is one of the first such studies in the world. The epidemiological study addresses public concerns about possible health risks from exposure to emissions from base stations. The study was selected in recognition of the public concern about the proliferation of mobile phone masts, and of the need for research to investigate whether they could have health effects. The study will also investigate whether people may differ in their sensitivity to radio-frequency emissions.
	I shall not go into further detail about health issues now, since those will come up again as I go through the clauses of the Bill. However, I stress that the Government are not complacent. We are committed to keeping the mobile phone technologies under review. In the light of such studies and international research programmes, I can assure the House that if the scientific advice changes, the Government will act.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I can wholly reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. If I get the opportunity later, I shall deal with previous allegations of deals between Government and mobile phone operators. We have evidence to demonstrate that that is a scurrilous allegation and totally without foundation. We are working with the mobile operators. As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said, having had a meeting with them this week, the operators acknowledge that there is a gap and that progress can be made, and they are keen to co-operate. I hope that is adequate reassurance for the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) that no skulduggery is going on in any way, shape or form.
	Let me set out the Government's record in terms of the planning regime and managing the environmental impacts of communications developments. The Government have strengthened the planning regulations twice, in 1999 and in 2001. In 2001 the regulations for prior approval were strengthened so that in effect they are very similar to the arrangements for full planning permission. The current planning arrangements have therefore been given very careful consideration.
	The Stewart report on mobile phones and health published in 2000 recommended that telecommunication development should be subject to the normal planning process in order to improve local consultation. The Government considered that recommendation in detail and accepted the importance of ensuring that effective public consultation takes place.
	As a result, the changes in 2001 significantly strengthened the planning arrangements for such developments. We increased the time for authorities to deal with prior approval applications from 28 and 42 days to a uniform 56. Public consultation requirements on prior approval procedures were strengthened so that they became exactly the same as those for applications for planning permission. Fees were increased from £35 to £190 to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation.
	Our revised arrangements for prior approval applications have the same consultation requirements as for applications for planning permission. Therefore, we have met the concerns that led the Stewart group to make the recommendation for full planning permission. The Government have also published revised planning policy guidance, which provides more information on their expectations for standards of consultation with local communities on new communications developments, particularly where the development would be near a school.
	In November 2002, we also published the code of best practice on mobile phone network development. The code was produced jointly by central Government and local government and the mobile phone industry. It provides detailed guidance on consultation procedures between operators, local authorities and local people. The Government attach great importance to securing good design in development generally and the code's advice on good siting and design of new communications developments has helped to direct development to the most appropriate locations and to minimise environmental impact and visual intrusion.
	Mention has already been made by right hon. and hon. Members of the review that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Welsh Assembly Government commissioned the university of Reading and Arup to undertake in September 2004. Their independent study was designed to assess the impact that the code of best practice on mobile phone network development has had since its introduction, how local authorities have implemented the code and how the public perceive its operation.
	The review was completed in March last year. The ODPM is considering the findings and recommendations set out in the report and how we should take them forward within the context of the wider review of planning arrangements for telecommunications developments. We took a decision to publish the report this week to inform today's debate, which has been mentioned by several colleagues.
	Before I talk about the content, I want to address some criticisms that have been made of the Government's handling of the report. The review was carried out in consultation with stakeholders, and representatives from local authorities, the industry and Mast Action UK were on the steering group. Its conclusions were reasonably widely known.
	Those Members who have had the opportunity to read the report will have seen that it is not negative; it is balanced. The general conclusion is that, where the code works, it works well, but that there is room for improvement, which is where the recommendations focus. That is where the Government will be focusing their attention.
	We are keen to ensure that every community that is affected by a development proposal for a telecommunications apparatus can be assured that it will have the opportunity to comment and that the decision-making process is open, fair and consistent.
	Allegations have been made:
	"By not publishing the report the Government is allowing telecommunications companies to continue to erect phone masts while openly flouting Government guidelines and codes of best practice and ignoring the wishes of local communities affected by masts."
	That is simply not true. I have already outlined how the Government have, since 1997, twice strengthened the consultation requirements to ensure that local communities have an opportunity to express their views on telecommunications developments. Although there has been considerable improvement, the Government think there is still more to do. I can assure the House that we are looking at this issue closely and will continue to do so to determine the best way forward. The recommendations of the report will assist in that process.
	Another allegation that has been made is that the £22 billion paid for third generation licences put the Government under an obligation to let the industry do what it wants. That is ridiculous, as I said a few moments ago in response to the question asked by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey. The licences were auctioned in April 2000. In August 2000, the Government strengthened the planning regulations, and if we decide we need to strengthen the regulations further, we will.
	The rate of development of new base stations is determined by the industry and influenced by licence requirements and market forces. The rate of development has slowed now that 2G networks are rolled out. The licence requirement for 3G networks has to be met by the end of 2007, but clearly development will not stop then as demand continues to grow.
	The Government recognise that this issue will not go away. That is why it is so critical that any changes we make to the planning arrangements are effective and proportionate in the longer term.
	It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 10 March.

Ashok Kumar: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting me the debate. I want to speak about the importance of swimming in the context of the overall development of sport in Britain, and—mindful of the coming Olympic games in 2012—about how we can encourage, train and nurture the rising generation of young swimmers who may be capable of representing our country. I also want to say a little about a campaign that began in the town of Guisborough, in my constituency, and to request support and help from the Government.
	Swimming is an activity that can be an integral part of the development of a healthier nation. That is why I want the Government to put the maximum effort into the development of swimming and the provision of facilities and infrastructure for it. I am glad to say that the Government have stressed the importance of swimming as an activity, and in particular its importance for young children. That was emphasised in their response to a report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee entitled "Testing the Waters". In its response, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport observed that both adults and children were failing to reach the recommended levels of physical activity. It also recognised the need to promote greater participation in physical activity, including swimming, among all groups. It pointed out that swimming was the largest single beneficiary of Sport England lottery funding to date, and that so far it had received no less than a sixth of sport lottery funds. However, some issues are still unresolved.
	I want to focus on issues relating to my constituency. There is no doubt that in the past it has been well served by the local authorities in swimming pool provision. The constituency forms part of two boroughs—Middlesbrough, and Redcar and Cleveland. Middlesbrough has built a pool on the growing Coulby Newham estate; Redcar and Cleveland has provided pools in Saltburn, Loftus and Guisborough—all towns in my constituency. The pools were built in the mid-1960s, when capital funding for leisure was part of a straightforward compact between central and local government. The oldest, and the one in most need of enhancement or rebuilding, is the Guisborough pool, which receives some 60,000 visits a year. It was built as a temporary structure to last for a maximum of 10 years—a time limit that is now up. Guisborough, with a population of some 16,000, is the largest town in my constituency. It is clear to me that it should have a swimming pool that can serve a town of that size.
	The existing pool hosts a number of swimming clubs, including the Guisborough swimming club, the Guisborough aqua fit club and the Guisborough life saving club. It is used extensively by children from the town's primary schools and the local secondary school. The secondary school recently achieved sports academy status, and the head teacher has said that he would incorporate swimming in its curriculum if only a better local facility were available.
	There is real potential in the community, which may be lost if the facilities are not available to accommodate it. Above all, the pool is valued as a leisure centre by people young and old from both the town and the neighbouring communities. More than five years ago, a group of amateur sport and leisure swimmers told me of their concern about the state of the baths. They feared that there was a real threat of closure. Their concern was heightened when Redcar and Cleveland council expressed anxiety about the health and safety implications of keeping open an old pool in nearby Redcar. It eventually had to close that pool—a decision that it regretted but felt was inevitable.
	As a result, I launched a campaign in Guisborough to show the council the strength of feeling in Guisborough and in the surrounding communities about the need to keep the pool open. Over a short period, a petition was collected containing some 5,000 signatures. That was presented to the House. A more in-depth survey of public opinion was conducted in the town. That led to some 600 questionnaires being returned and analysed. That again showed both the need and the importance of the pool to the people of Guisborough.
	To mobilise the campaign to save the swimming pool, Rob Vincent-Jones, the chair of the amateur swimming club, members of other user groups, other individuals and residents of Guisborough and I set up a steering group. It was recognised by all involved parties that there were no quick fixes for securing new facilities. As a result, a firm of consultants was hired to prepare an in-depth feasibility study, which looked at the present state of the pool and the demand for and supply of pool provision in the area. It went on to look at possible design and management options for a new pool and the funding strategy that would be needed to secure it. The report confirmed with empirical evidence that the building was near to its end in physical terms, and that it was a valued and important facility to the local townspeople and the local schools.
	In order to explore all available avenues, I discussed that issue with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport. He was very sympathetic and supportive, and recognised the difficulties that we were facing. In fact, he granted a meeting with me, and with a delegation from the Guisborough steering group, which was useful and worth while. He was very generous with his time, but he directed me to Sport England.
	When the steering group and I met Sport England, it said that it followed a model called the Sport England facilities planning model, which is used to determine the distribution of funding within its remit. It is used rigidly across the UK as a guide for determining patronage of new or improved facilities and their relationship with other pools in the wider geographical area.
	Sport England's own conclusion from running that model for Guisborough was that there was sufficient "waterspace" in the area to meet the existing demand. That was confirmed to me by Judith Rasmussen, Sport England's regional director for the north-east. I praise Judith and her staff, who have been very helpful and supportive, and with whom we have worked closely. However, that did not resolve our problem. It was a crucial setback.
	I want to point out some features of the model that I feel require examination, and I ask the Minister to look at these issues. First, the model considers only the patronage and population figures in the wider geographical area. It does not consider the physical conditions of the other facilities and whether they meet the demands of a new century. It does not take into account the higher-cost profiles for running older pools or compare like with like, with a possible new pool on one site. It does not examine in any depth social inclusion issues, which are dear to the Government's heart and important for a borough such as Redcar and Cleveland, where there are many diverse and free-standing communities.
	That factor is also important when we recognise that the existing pool lies in what is called the north Guisborough area of the town. The pool is adjacent to a large ex-local authority housing estate and an area that exhibits above average indices of unemployment, low achievement and ill health. The model fails to look at swimming in terms of wider benefits—community safety, the promotion of a healthy life style and the development of life skills among young people. That left us with a dilemma.
	We have explored other avenues. At present, the most promising path appears to be a collaboration with a local landowner and developer. He wishes to market an area of land adjacent to the present town limits for housing, some of it social housing, and other mixed development. That could trigger a section 106 agreement to finance the capital costs of the pool, and perhaps even provide an element of the revenue costs for a certain period.
	The proposal as it stands would be a departure from the approved local plan for Redcar and Cleveland. However, like the pool, that document has seen better days, and the borough council is now well advanced with its new local development framework programme, which, I am happy to say, has the potential for some new development within and around Guisborough. I hope that that will provide the catalyst for the new pool for which the town has been calling.
	However, we are still seeking to explore all funding avenues, and I ask the Minister to undertake to consider three issues that are dear to me. First, when he and his colleagues meet Sport England, will they raise the issue of its facilities planning model and ask whether it meets the holistic need of the Government in seeing swimming as an activity that has manifold benefits, and whether it properly covers issues such as concentrating on areas of social deprivation and poor health such as those in parts of my constituency?
	Secondly, will he encourage the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to widen its horizons when issuing planning policy statements, which can give valuable leadership in actively promoting the development and spread of sporting and swimming provision and give weight to possible planning obligations that include swimming provision as part of the development plan, especially when they offer guidance on planning gain and planning obligations to local planning authorities such as Redcar and Cleveland as regards the position on promoting sports—in this case, swimming? I hope that if that occurs, towns such as Guisborough will have a far better chance of securing a provision that is desperately required.
	Thirdly, I invite the Minister for Sport, who has so far been sympathetic and supportive, to visit Guisborough to see for himself the state of the swimming pool, which illustrates the importance of this issue and the effect that it has had on the local community. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland (Dr. Kumar) on his success in securing this debate. I will do my best to respond to all the issues that he raised.
	As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in this House a few weeks ago, investment in community facilities such as swimming pools should be a priority. The Government are committed to increasing sports participation, and swimming is one of the most popular forms of physical activity, with 5.5 million people swimming at least once a month. Access to good quality sporting provision, including swimming pools, is therefore an essential part of enabling people to lead healthier lives and to participate in sport. Concern about this issue has been reflected in my hon. Friend's important comments.
	If I may, I will set out the national picture before turning to the specific points that my hon. Friend raised in relation to his constituency. One of the Government's public service agreement targets is to increase participation in sport by priority groups by 3 per cent. by 2008. However, one of the obstacles that prevents people from taking part is a lack of good quality sports facilities. That applies equally to all sections of the community. Our aim is that
	"by 2008, most people should be no more than 20 minutes travel time from a good quality, multi sports environment such as schools, sports clubs and leisure centres".
	However, the scale of that challenge is immense. There is a clear deficit in funding for sports facilities alongside the fact that the existing facility stock is in a deteriorating condition, as described by my hon. Friend. The average age of local authority facilities is about 25 years. The national stock of sports centres requires some £550 million to be spent now to bring the condition up to a good and acceptable standard, without any upgrading to take account of modern trends in sports participation and current levels of demand.
	However the Government are taking a number of positive steps to address these issues. Currently, more than 4,400 swimming facilities across England are open to the public; 72 per cent. of them are owned by the local authority or by the education sector, and more than half are pay-and-play facilities. Since 2004, 131 pools have opened across the country, and more local authority pools have opened than have closed. Since 1997, the Government and lottery distributing bodies have, between them, invested more than £3 billion in physical activity and sport. In that time, £249 million of lottery investment has gone into swimming—the largest amount given to any sport—as my hon. Friend pointed out. Local authorities themselves will invest some £1 billion in sports services—facilities and development—over the next three years.
	However, a strategic approach needs to be adopted. The problem is that many pools are old—built 25 years ago—in the wrong location and cost a lot of money to keep open. So we are challenging local authorities to put sport and swimming provision at the heart of what they do. For the first time ever, we will monitor local authority performance in sport provision through the comprehensive performance assessment, and we are committed to supporting local authorities in their efforts. Sport England has a swimming strategy in place and is working with local authorities to help them implement it. Many local authorities have also created their own strategies, so that community needs are met by the public and private sectors. We of course applaud that.
	Sport England has also developed a range of strategic planning tools to assist local authorities in their strategic planning of sports facilities. They include modelling tools and demand estimators, which, together with the "active places" database of the supply of facilities, will help local authorities to identify gaps and to target resources where they are most needed; a benchmarking service that will provide rigorous and robust information on the performance of sports facilities in comparison with other such facilities; and a planning obligations kitbag that will allow local authorities, developers and other stakeholders to facilitate the provision of community sports facilities associated with residential developments.
	On the situation in my hon. Friend's constituency, there are some nine swimming pools—including the Guisborough pool—located at five sites in the Redcar and Cleveland borough council area. As he said, a supply-and-demand modelling exercise undertaken in 1999 indicated that this level of provision was enough to meet demand, but it made no reference to quality or to issues specific to the local authority. I understand that the council and Sport England have since had a number of discussions about the need to update the council's swimming facilities strategy to take account of these issues, and that Sport England has offered some financial assistance to enable the council to undertake the necessary work. I urge the council to take up that offer.
	I appreciate that my hon. Friend has concerns about the extent to which Sport England's facilities planning model deals with the issues of age and social inclusion, and with the condition of facilities. In response to his first request, Sport England has informed me that the services it has offered to the council can be tailored to provide a detailed local assessment. It is crucial that we provide sports facilities that are fit for the 21st century and that meet the needs of the communities whom they serve. I ask my hon. Friend to keep the Minister for Sport informed of progress on the development of the updated strategy. I know that my right hon. Friend would be happy to discuss with Sport England what other options are available to assist local authorities in planning more effectively for sport.
	On funding for new or upgraded swimming pool provision in Redcar and Cleveland, I understand that Sport England has had some early discussions with the local authority; I urge them to continue that dialogue. I am informed that the results of any new modelling would be only one factor in reaching a decision on the awarding of lottery funding for the area.
	On my hon. Friend's second request, concerning planning issues, I very much endorse the view that planning policy statements can provide effective leadership in promoting the development and spread of sporting provision. Indeed, the planning policy guidance note on sport and recreation—PPG 17—does just that. It states:
	"To ensure effective planning for open space, sport and recreation it is essential that the needs of local communities are known. Local authorities should undertake robust assessments of the existing and future needs of their communities for open space, sports and recreational facilities."
	It goes on to say that local authorities should ensure that provision is made for local sports and recreational facilities where planning permission is granted for new developments, especially housing. It also establishes that planning obligations should be used as a means to remedy local deficiencies in the quantity or quality of open space, sports and recreational provision. In making use of planning obligations, it is essential that local authorities have undertaken detailed assessments of needs and audits of existing facilities, and set appropriate local standards in order to justify their use.
	For Redcar and Cleveland, as my hon. Friend may be aware, Sport England has offered funding to the local authority to enable it to develop a supplementary planning document on planning obligations for sport and physical activity. That document would result in a framework for collecting developer contributions for sport and recreational provision from new development. Again, I would urge the local authority to take up that offer if it has not done so already.
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are in regular dialogue about how the planning system might be further enhanced in the better interests of sport. With regard to my hon. Friend's final request, I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport would be delighted to visit Guisborough pool to see the facility first hand.
	If I may return to the national picture, it is clear that there are some very positive messages about swimming in this country, although we are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge in terms of providing better community facilities. But that has to start with local authorities ensuring that there is good local provision that meets the needs of all sections of their communities. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on behalf of his constituents and the wider community.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Three o'clock.